سازمان حفاظت محيط زيست

گزارش پيشرفت سالانه طرح در سال كارى 2011

2011

"Annual Progress Report 2011"

«طرح حفاظت از تالاب هاى ايران»

Conservation of Iranian Wetlands

Annual Report 2011

Submitted on

4 March 2012

Prepared By: Endorsed By:

______________________________

____________________________

Dr Ali Nazaridoust Dr Asghar Mohammadi Fazel

National Project Manager National Project Director

Date: Date:

Conservation of Iranian Wetlands Project Annual Report - 2011

Prepared by:

Conservation of Iranian Wetlands Project Office

Department of Environment

Islamic Republic of Iran

http://wetlandsproject.ir

Compiled by: Mohsen Soleymani Roozbahani Deputy National Project manager Ciwp.dnpm@gmail.com Mehdi Safari Oskouei Financial Assistant osqoee@yahoo.com

Submitted to:

United Nations Development Programme – Iran

8 Shahrzad Boulevard, Darrous, Tehran, Iran

Phone: +98 21 22860691-4

www.undp.org.ir

Contents

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

bcm Billion Cubic Meters

mcm Million Cubic Meters

CBO Community Based Organisation

CPD Country Programme Document

CDR Combined Delivery Report

DCHT Department for Cultural Heritage and Tourism

DoE Department of Environment

GEF Global Environment Facility

IR Iran Islamic Republic of Iran

LP Lake Parishan

LU Lake Uromiyeh

LUB Lake Uromiyeh Basin

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MoJA Ministry of Jihad Agriculture

MFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs

MOE Ministry of Energy

MoI Ministry of Interior

MRT Ministry of Roads and Transport

MTE Mid-Term Evaluation

NPD National Project Director

NPM National Project Manager

NPT National Project Team

NRO Natural Resources Organisation

SPAC Office of Strategic Planning Affairs and Control of the Government of the

Islamic Republic of Iran

SW Shadegan Wetland

TOR Terms of Reference

TPR Tripartite Review

UN United Nations

UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance Framework

UNDP United Nations Development Program

WPA Wetland Protected Area

Conservation of Iranian Annual Report 2011 Wetlands Project

Executive Summary

This is an annual report for the activities of the Conservation of Iranian Wetlands Project (the

Project) for 2011. Although the headings may differ, this Executive Summary provides a breakdown

of the key points from the body of this report.

Conservation of Iranian Wetlands Project in I. R. Iran

This is a project established through the cooperation of the Global Environment Facility (GEF),

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Iranian Department of Environment (DoE).

It was brought about because of the drastically worsening condition of Iranian wetlands and to

develop methods for Iran to comply with its international environmental commitments, notably the

1971 Ramsar Convention.

It aims to systematically remove, or substantially mitigate, threats to the biodiversity and

sustainability of Lake Uromiyeh (LU), Lake Parishan (LP) and Shadegan Wetland (SW). In doing this it

also aims to ensure that the lessons learned through this Project are absorbed with Iran’s Wetland

Protected Area (WPA) management systems. As many of Iran’s wetlands face similar threats,

particularly the tendency for key threats to originate within the wider watershed area outside of

WPA boundaries, a demonstration of the removal of these threats will be of broad relevance.

As a result, the project places substantial emphasis on demonstrating approaches to conservation,

sustainable use and threat removal/mitigation at WPAs within the Lake Uromiyeh Ecological Zone,

Lake Parishan and Shadegan Wetland. This ecological zone includes LU itself, a c. 5,000 km2

hypersaline lake and National Park in the highlands of northwestern Iran, together with various

ecologically connected and smaller satellite wetlands of international importance. Further support

also goes towards ensuring conservation and sustainable use of LP and SW, which are located in Fars

and Khuzestan Provinces respectively.

For the last ten years, Iran has also been experiencing a severe ongoing drought. As a result, the

UNDP and the DoE are working together to develop a Drought Risk Management System for

wetlands. This has also been added as an additional component of this Project and Lake Urmia

demonstration site.

Outlines of the key Project facts are noted in Tables 2 and 4.

Overall Progress and Achievements

The Project has now completed its 7th year of operation and has made substantial progress towards

its objectives. These objectives are noted in full in Tables 3 and 5. It is currently working to

complete the remaining objectives at the demonstration sites. For the next one year, its focus

extends to rolling out the wetland management framework to other Wetland Protected Areas

(WPAs) throughout Iran. As such, it will be working to ensure the sustainability of the Project’s

activities by working to establish the National Wetlands Strategy Committee and having the DoE act

as a secretariat for this committee. It will also look to build the capacities of national partners so

that they may assume responsibility for the wetlands. The advantage here is that they will have the

benefit of several years of established practice and experience to draw on.

Major Results in 2011

Key results that have culminated in 2011 are as followed:

a. Implementation of Integrated Management Plans of Demonstration Sites

Implementation status of the management plans until the end of 2011 is as followed:

b. Demonstration sites management structures established and start functioning

The first meeting of LU regional council was held.

WA provincial management committee was established and had four meetings in 2011.

LP provincial and local management committee had two meetings. LP subcommittee had several meetings

LU technical working groups had two meetings each to discuss their role and new responsibilities

SW local management committee established in 2011 and had two meetings. Technical working groups had several meetings mainly focused on finalizing monitoring plans and protocols.

Capacity development program implemented for demonstration sites secretariats

The secretariats have also established their website for better information sharing among stakeholders.

c. Development of wise use strategies and action plans

“Action Plan on LP pollution management and control” was prepared and approved

Shadegan wetland zoning maps and codes of practice were finalized and developing SW

sustainable fishery strategy was started

LP ecotourism strategy and action plan was prepared

d. Lake Uromiyeh Water Right and Water Share

After water right approval in previous years, there has now been final agreement on the LU Water-share among three provinces around the lake and there has been lots of effort to implement the agreements.

e. LUB drought risk management plan

Considering the current ongoing drought crisis in Lake Urmia , CIWP started a sub-project since 2009 to develop a drought risk management plan for the lake. The plan is in final stages of preparation and will be a synthesis of drought characteristic (Spatial/Temporal behaviour), meteorological and

Assessment on LU MP Implementation Assessment on LP MP Implementation

hydrological variables trend in LUB, drought management structure (organization), agriculture situation and monitoring system reports which were finalized in 2011.

f. LU satellite wetlands

Gorigol wetland management plan was finalized

Kanibarazan wetland designated as a Ramsar convention site and as Wild Life Refuge

g. Conservation and monitoring of LP biodiversity and endangered species

Three conservation ponds established and monitored to save LP endangered fish species.

Capacity development for conservation and monitoring of Otter

More than 100 students and teachers, Guards and local communities were trained and a local team was trained for further monitoring of Otter in cooperation with DoE guards.

LP land conflict resolution process

A map which indicates possible area of conflicts among different stakeholders was prepared and process of issuing title-deed for the wetland was started by judiciary office.

h. Community engagement and public awareness

SW and LP local community engagement in wetland management

8 representatives from different part of the SW are now members of working groups and provincial and local management committees.

Active participation in developing sustainable agriculture, Female Sustainable Agriculture Facilitators initiatives and participation in tour leader training course are good examples of their effective role.

TV and Radio Programs

Eight talk shows of a 26 episode series about LU problems and management were broadcasted from EA provincial TV. A Radio program about LU is broadcasting from WA Radio channel every week.

i. Developing sustainable agriculture around LP and LU

Dmonstration farms were established around LP

Organic farming introduced to gardens around Gorigol

j. National wetland strategy and action plan finalized

k. Securing National budget for wetland management system

The first budget was part of 5th development plan, in which the amount of 175 billion Toman was allocated to a 5-years project, another 90 billion Toman emergency budget for wetland management and restoration.

l. Capacity development and engagement of DoE habitat office for CIWP exit strategy

Preparation of wetland management toolkit based on CIWP experience

n. Iranian Wetland Database structure was finalized.

o. Sharing CIWP experience with Key national stake holders

Meetings with Parliament members on wetland management

MoU with University of Environment

Close Cooperation with Ministry of Interior through consultative and training seminars for

managers and senior experts

Half day training seminars for DoE, MoJA an MoE mangers and experts

p. Sharing achievements and lessons learnt at international level

Participating in Ramsar convention Asia Regional Pre-COP11 meeting

Support 40th anniversary of Ramsar convention (global forum on wetlands for the future)

Publishing and sharing results of Regional Community of Practice for Wetland Conservation

Managers

q. CIWP exit strategy

There was an special focus on implementing this strategy within 2011 and it was also reflected on project activities during 2011 and planned ones for 2012. As a result, project concentrated more on finalizing activities in demonstration sites, securing national funds and budget for national wetland management system through developing national programs, close cooperation with related DoE offices to deliver responsibilities, develop and implement staff exit plan, reducing input and leadership for joint activities with stakeholders, concentrating more on documentation and production to roll out project achievements and approaches.

Indirect Results

a. Engagement of Civil Society

This Project has utilised the support and capacities of over 10 NGOs and approximately 12 CBOs1. In

doing this, it has provided opportunities for these organisations to grow and develop, while also

working towards the main project objectives. Through this, the capacity of civil society is developed

such that it may continue to support the project goals and the community after the closure of the

Project. An example of this is in the fact that the SW local and provincial Management Committees

have 4 seats dedicated to NGOs, CBOs village representatives. Where possible, the Project has also

worked to implement wetland protection initiatives proposed by local communities, both at LP and

SW.

b. South-South Cooperation

Study visit of Pakistan technical group from CIWP experiences in demonstration sites

In a new initiative and in line with South-South cooperation, CIWP in cooperation with Ramsar Regional Center for West and Central Asia, hosted A technical/managerial Pakistani group to visit CIWP demonstration sites.

The group included governmental managers and experts working closely with Pakistan National wetland project which was implemented by World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF-Pakistan). The team visited Lake Urmia and Lake Parishan and was acquainted with CIWP activities, achievements and lessons learnt mainly on local community engagement, wetland management structures, field

1

activities by stakeholders and management plan development and implementation while sharing their comments and ideas with the project team.

Contribution towards attaining CPD and UNDAF Outcomes

a. Country Programme Document

The Country Programme Document (CPD) has among its aims the objective of improving Iran’s ability to meet the MDG targets. This Project’s focus is in line with MDG-7, environmental sustainability. Due to the high demand on water resources, the Project is engaged in finding ways in which sustainable water management systems can be promoted and adopted within the Government’s national strategies. Further, the levels of international cooperation this Project exhibits also contributes towards MDG8, the fostering of global partnerships.

The CPD also works to have environmental sustainability incorporated into national and local development strategies. This Project works to do just that and have WPA management systems incorporated at local, provincial and national levels through various committees, which are established and supported by the Project at various levels of Government. Further, these management plans have been tested and are currently being institutionalised.

b. United Nations Development Assistance Framework

This Project works directly towards the achievement of UNDAF Outcome 4.2 – “Global and national environmental concerns and environmentally sensitive development integrated into national development frameworks and implemented through community-based approaches to the sustainable use of natural resources, capacity-building, environmental assessment and the removal of financial, economic, legal, institutional and technological barriers.”

This Project works by a philosophy of participation and integration in which the capacity development of local communities and organisation are actively pursued. What is more, it has worked to incorporate this philosophy into the wetland management plans. These plans factor in the various development and environmental concerns of the areas in question and have now been incorporated into national development strategies.

Recommendations from Lessons Learned and Good Practices

Project exit strategy and safe ending

Developing an exit strategy for the final years of the project, provided a good basis for a gradual shift

of project technical responsibilities to related stakeholders and a plan for staff exit from the project.

Close cooperation with implementing agency offices and governmental stakeholders

It could be a risk for the project to focus on project activities without establishing useful and

effective links with the experts of the IA and other governmental organizations. Developing such

links and establishing inter-sectoral management mechanisms may prevent large changes within

project management body itself and established mechanisms due to political and managerial

changes in these organizations.

Gradual change

Sometimes projects tends to start and insist on big changes within IA and partner organizations in

short period which may normally cause to resistant from those agencies and reducing effectiveness

and speed of activities. Changes in a longer period are more acceptable and sustainable.

As a recommendation, secured national budget as co-funding for international projects

One of the problems that international developing projects normally faced is secured national

budget in line with project activities. One recommendation for overcome this problem is developing

and approving a national program within governmental financial system which support the joint

project activities and provide financial resources in more secured mechanisms.

Risks and Challenges

The CIWP has recorded the risk of drought as serious and critical for the last several years, and

various mitigation activities are being undertaken. However, the drought conditions have continued

such that the risk has become reality. The Lake Parishan demonstration site has now been largely

dry since 2009, whilst at Lake Uromiyeh water levels have fallen throughout the project period and

salinity has become so high as to inhibit ecological functioning. Lake Uromiyeh’s satellite wetlands

have been less affected as a result of restoration measures. Biodiversity outcome targets are

therefore mainly “Red”.

For addressing the risk, CIWP has made a report to summarise the impacts of a persistent drought

on the expected outcomes of the IRI/UNDP/GEF Conservation of Iranian Wetlands Project, presents

the mitigatory and adaptive measures that have been taken, and makes a number of

recommendations.

Conclusion

Over the last seven years of implementation, the Project has come a long way towards achieving its

objective of establishing an effective management system that addresses the threats to the Project

Sites in cooperation with the main stakeholders at national and provincial levels. At the same time,

on a national level, the urgent need to address the threats to wetland ecosystems has been taken to

the highest levels of Government through developing national wetland strategy and action plan and

LU national management committee. Wetland data bank has been developed and is ready to be

used by DoE and a project toolkit is under construction for further application by stakeholders. On

the other hand national budget has been secured for five years for application and roll out of CIWP

experiences and new management system for important wetlands around the country.

What is more, it is working to ensure the lessons learned from this experience are absorbed within

WPA management systems throughout Iran.

1.0 Introduction

Iran is a geographically diverse country. Its rich ecology and biodiversity can be found in its dry

desert landscapes, snowy mountain peaks and green pastures and forests. Given that much of the

country is characterised by dry, arid conditions, the many wetlands and watercourses across Iran

provide an important escape and oasis. It is also here that much of the country’s unique flora and

fauna can be found. However, over past decades, these wetlands have come under increasing

threat and as a result, have necessitated the implementation of active protection measures.

This is an annual report for the Conservation of Iranian Wetlands Project (the Project), which is being

implemented by Department of Environment (DoE) in the Islamic Republic of Iran (IR Iran). The

Project receives funding from the Government of IR Iran, but is also supported by the Global

Environment Facility (GEF) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). It also has had

some assistance from an international donor, the Government of Netherlands. The Project works to

strengthen national wetland management capacities through applying ecosystem approach for

addressing key threats to the environmental stability at three pilot wetland sites: Lake Uromiyeh

(LU), Lake Parishan (LP) and Shadegan Wetland (SW).

This report provides an overview of the Project’s activities for 2011. It starts by providing a general

contextual background to the Project and a brief outline of the project history and key institutions

involved. It then moves to discuss the progress against the Project objectives to date. This is

followed by sections providing an overview of the Project finances, existing challenges and issues,

potential upcoming risks and some lessons learned from good practices. It finishes by providing

some recommendations for moving forward.

The objective of this document is to provide an outline to the contextual and operational

background to the Project activities, a review of each Project’s activities, and an outline of the

lessons learned and recommendations to date.

2.0 Contextual Background

This chapter provides a basic description of the context in which the Project operates. This is done

by first providing a brief situation analysis of Iran and wetlands in general. Within the context of the

Ramsar Convention, a description of the status of wetlands in Iran is then provided.

2.1 Iran and Wetlands

Iran is a geographically expansive country at 1.648 million km2 in size. To its north lies the Caspian

Sea and at its southern border is the Persian Gulf. It also shares a border with Iraq to the west;

Turkey, Armenia and Turkmenistan to the north; and Afghanistan and Pakistan to the East. The

country boasts a varied terrain that ranges from coastal lagoons, dry desert plains, two expansive

mountain ranges and green northern forests.

Iran also contains over 1000 wetland sites, over 150 of which are of international significance.2

Wetlands are among the world’s most productive environments.3 They house vast amounts of

biological diversity and provide the water to countless species, including humans, need for survival.

They also support high concentrations of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrate

species.4 Iran’s wetlands provide not only scenic beauty, but are also a cradle for a wide range of

flora and fauna, many of which transit Iran in the form of migratory birds. These wetlands are also

essential for providing sustenance to the people who inhabit the areas surrounding these wetlands.

However, like many other countries, as Iran has developed, increasing pressure has been placed on

it’s environment and natural resources, among these were the precious wetlands. This pressure did

not go unnoticed by authorities and over the 1960’s increased international momentum was gained

for the establishment of some means of protecting these areas.

2.1.1 Ramsar Convention 1971

This international momentum culminated in the Convention on Wetlands of International

Importance, especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention). The Ramsar Convention is an

intergovernmental treaty that provides a framework for national action and international

cooperation for the conservation and sustainable use of wetlands and wetland resources.5

The general text of the convention was prepared over a series of technical meetings. Initially, the

Convention aimed at protecting waterfowl, but as discussions progressed it developed into one

conserving wetland habitats as a whole. Eventually, the final text was agreed to at a conference

held in Ramsar, Iran in 1971. It entered into force in 1975 and has since then, worked to provide a

general framework for the conservation and sustainable management of wetlands.

2

3

4

5

As States become members to the Ramsar Convention, they must designate at least one national

wetland site to be registered as an official Ramsar site. This is done in accordance with criteria set

out in the Convention. Needless to say, Iran too is a signatory to the Convention and has several

registered Ramsar sites. Table 1 below contains a breakdown of Iranian wetlands and their national

and international status.6

Breakdown of Iranian Wetland Sites Breakdown of the Number of Sites

Area (ha)

Wetland sites in Iran 1000+

Wetland sites in DoE database 84

Wetlands classified as Ramsar Sites 24 1,486,438

Wetland sites considered of international significance (WIS) 47

- WIS sites not Ramsar listed nor nationally protected 9

- Wetland protected areas (WPAs) Ramsar listed only 25

- WPAs with some national legal protection 61

- National Park 6 685,650

- Wildlife Refuge 14 639,277

- Protected Area 20 1,931,564

- No-hunting area 21 185,823

Table 1

2.2 Long Running Drought and Water Resource Management

Over the last decade, Iran as a whole has been suffering from a long running drought. This drought

is affecting water levels in lakes across the country, including the wetlands that are the subject of

this Project.

Since the year 2000, Lake Uromiyeh has had decreasing water levels and increased levels of salinity.

The surrounding wetlands are also under threat as a result of rapid unplanned urbanisation, the

construction of water resource development infrastructure and unsustainable water usage, the

unprecedented increase in land use for agriculture and pollution.7

Lake Uromiyeh is recharged through 17 tributary rivers, 39 flood-ways, and 14 seasonal rivers which

are mainly in the southern part of the basin. This inflow is estimated to be approximately 5300 mcm

6

7

annually.8 It also receives direct rainfall and groundwater seepage, however this has been greatly

reduced in recent years due to agricultural groundwater extraction.

The Lake Uromiyeh Basin (LUB) has a population of over 5.9 million9 and there are now more than

36 cities and 3150 villages the area.10 To meet the increasing demand on water, the Government

has completed or planned several resource development projects. Reportedly, 231 water

development projects have been identified as feasible for the next 20 years. This includes 74

storage dams and 124 diversion weirs.11

As a result of its size, LU is a major factor in defining the microclimate of the region. This increased

environmental and social pressure on LU and the surrounding wetlands is potentially catastrophic

for the local environment and its inhabitants.

To address this, a supplementary project on drought risk management was created by the UNDP and

DoE. This project is discussed further in the next chapter of this report.

8

9

10

11

Conservation of Iranian Annual Report 2011 Wetlands Project

3.0 Conservation of Iranian Wetlands Project in Iran

This chapter provides an outline of the Project itself as well as the key actors involved. For brevity,

Tables 2 and 4 below have been prepared to provide the key information relating to the Project.

3.1 Wetlands Project Outline

As noted above, Iran has been an active founding member of the Ramsar Convention. However,

actions previously taken in protecting wetland areas have not been effective in addressing the

threats to these ecosystems. Over recent decades, it was noted that more work was needed to

actively protect the country’s wetlands. Many were becoming seriously degraded, some to the

point where the biodiversity and human activities that were reliant on them were dying out.12 This

brought about the gradual development of the Conservation of Iranian Wetlands Project.

The Project plan was drawn up over six years from 1998 to 2004 by international consultants

working with the Government of Islamic Republic of Iran (IR Iran), the United Nations Development

Programme (UNDP) and Global Environment Facility (GEF).13

Once the Project plan was completed, the Iranian Department of Environment (DoE) was designated

as the Executing Agency14. The Ministry of Energy was also brought onboard to assist in

implementing the support provided by the Government of Netherlands and coordinating with the

GEF/Government components of the Project. Other participating national agencies were: Office of

Strategic Planning and Control of the Government of the IR Iran (SPAC)15, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

(MFA), Ministry of Jihad Agriculture (MoJA), the Ministry of Roads and Transportation (MRT),

Ministry of Interior (MoI) and Cultural Heritage Organization (CHTO) in later steps of project. The

involvement of these later organisations was largely in assisting in the coordination of the Project

through representatives in its steering committee. In accordance with GEF requirements, the UNDP

was designated as the implementing agency of the Project.

Originally the Project was planned to be completed by the end of 2011, however at the beginning of

implementation, there were several changes in key staff that resulted in delays. Also, the onset of a

continuing drought further hindered implementation. As a result, the project was extended for an

additional one year on a no-cost basis.16

The Project is now planned to take eight years and has been assigned a budget of

USD$12.905 million. This is comprised of funds from the Government of IR Iran (USD$9.190m) and

from GEF (USD$2.915m). An additional USD$0.6m was granted by the Government of Netherlands

for an existing project in a similar area, however this project was largely completed before the full

commencement of the Project at hand.

12

13

14

15

16

Thus, an “at a glance” overview of the project is provided in Table 2 below.

Project Title Conservation of Iranian Wetlands

Project Duration 8 Years

Project Budget USD$12.905 million

Executing Entity Iranian Department of Environment (DoE)

Cooperating National Agencies

The Ministry of Energy

Office of Strategic Planning Affairs and Control of the Government of the IR Iran (SPAC)

Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA)

Ministry of Jihad Agriculture (MJA)

Ministry of Roads and Transportation (MRT)

Ministry of Interior (MoI)

Implementing Agency

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

Table 2

The underlying aim of the Project is to conduct a pilot and demonstration conservation operation,

which if proven successful, could be adopted by the Government and applied to the other national

wetlands. Two pilot sites were select for this: Lake Uromiyeh Basin (LUB) and Lake Parishan (LP).

The LUB, as part of a larger wetlands ecological zone, includes Lake Uromiyeh (LU), several satellite

wetlands that were of international importance and a national park. Lake Parishan is a fresh water

lake located in Arjan & Parishan Protected Area in Fars Province. In 2009, following a Mid-Term

Evaluation (MTE), it was also decided that Shadegan Wetland (SW), which had previously considered

a replication site for the Proect, be considered a pilot site on its own.

In light of previous experience, if it were to be successful, the Project had to address the main

threats to the pilot sites, namely:17

Changes to the water regime (dams, diversion, irrigation, wastage);

Aquatic and noise pollution (from agriculture, industry, domestic, boats and aircraft);

Unsustainable exploitation of wetland resources (over-fishing, over-grazing and over-

hunting);

17

Conversion of wetland habitats (agriculture and urban development);

Land degradation in watersheds (deforestation, over-grazing, agriculture);

Transport infrastructure; and

Species introductions, particularly invasive species (accidental and deliberate).

Because previously the designation of Wetland Protected Areas (WPAs) by the DoE had not proven

effective, the designers of the Project wished to develop a plan that took a new approach in wetland

conservation in Iran. “Ecosystem Approach” as the new approach that was decided upon is

characterised by two key words:18

1. Participation – for relevant stakeholders to be appropriately and actively engaged in the

conservation effort; and

2. Integration – to ensure that decisions about land, water and biodiversity use, which affect

wetlands, take into account the diverse influences upon wetlands by all sectors of human

economic development and livelihood activities.

Thus the goal, objectives and intended outcomes of the Project were developed. They are

summarised in Table 3 below:19

Project Goal

To catalyse the sustainability of Iran’s system of wetland protected areas (WPAs), thereby enhancing its effectiveness as a tool for conserving globally significant biodiversity.

Project Objective

To establish an effective management system to systematically remove or substantially mitigate threats facing globally significant biodiversity and sustainability at two WPA demonstration sites, while ensuring that the lessons learned are absorbed within WPA management systems throughout Iran.

Outcome 1

Model wetland management system designed and being implemented by DoE and other local stakeholders at demonstration sites to effectively address the most significant ‘internally arising’ threats to globally significant biodiversity.

Outcome 2

Model intersectoral coordination demonstrated at provincial and basin level enhances the sustainability of the wetland conservation system by, inter alia helping to address threats arising at ecosystem level.

Outcome 3 National level wetland management and inter-sectoral

18

19

coordination structures poses and utilize enhanced capacities, and the model system developed through Outcomes 1 and 2 above is applied to wetlands throughout Iran through strategies, replications, tools and exchange of knowledge and lessons learned.

Table 3

3.2 Drought Risk Management Project

As noted previously, the LUB is facing a critical threat in the form of a persistent drought and

increased demands on local water resources. If this were to continue, it would be disastrous to the

local microclimate and biodiversity. What is more, it puts to question the relevance and

effectiveness of the overall Project.

In light of this critical situation, joint UNDP and Project team visits were undertaken in early July

2008. Discussions were held with local stakeholders including local officials, NGOs and communities.

It was agreed to develop a drought risk management plan to be integrated into the Project.

As a result, the Lake Uromiyeh Drought Risk Management Project for Sustainable Livelihoods,

Biodiversity and Microclimate Management Project was created. The rational of the project is to

provide technical support that would “focus on building a critical technical knowledge base around

climate change and its impacts on microclimates, persistent droughts and biodiversity.”20

For brevity, Table 4 outlines the project key facts that differ from the overall Project, and Table 5

states the project goal and objective, it also contains the four outputs required of it.

Project Title

Lake Uromiyeh Drought Risk Management Project for Sustainable Livelihoods, Biodiversity and Microclimate Management Project

Project Duration 2 Years

Project Budget USD$200,000.00 (UNDP) TRAC Funding

Table 4

Project Goal

To establish an ecosystem based management for the lake and its satellite wetlands within the context of sustainable development with effective involvement of all stakeholders including local communities.

Project Objective Effective drought risk management for sustainable livelihoods and biodiversity in the environs of Lake Uromiyeh.

Output 1 [X] pubic officials, technical experts and NGO representatives benefited from national and international knowledge/experience exchange visits and other learning

20

opportunities.

Output 2

International technical research and capacity building support provided to relevant public agencies for scientific research around causative links/scientific evidence for climate change, persistent drought and local development interventions and threats to Lake Uromiyeh, including identification of opportunities for sustainable resource use.

Output 3 [X] multistakeholder demonstrative projects developed and implemented for improved /diversified livelihoods and natural resource management.

Output 4 [X] knowledge management/reflection sessions/researches organised to produce lessons learned documents/reports and wide distribution for replication.

Table 5

3.3 Project Entities

There are several entities involved in the Project, three of which are noted below.

a. Global Environment Facility

The Global Environment Facility (GEF) was established in 1991 through the World Bank to assist

developing countries protect the global environment and to promote environmentally sustainable

development. The GEF works by providing grants, which when applied, should transform a national

project into one that benefits the global environment.21 Globally, GEF grants support projects

related to biodiversity, climate change, international waters, land degradation, the ozone layer, and

persistent organic pollutants.

In 1994, GEF was restructured so that it became a permanent and separate institution in its own

right. The UNDP, United Nations Environment Program and World Bank are the initial three

implementing partners of GEF, though the World Bank has also become a trustee of the GEF Trust

Fund. 22

Today, the GEF is the largest funder of projects to improve the global environment. It has allocated

USD$9.2 billion, supplemented by more than USD$40 billion in co-financing, for more than 2,700

projects in more than 165 developing countries and countries undergoing economic transition.

Through its Small Grants Programme, the GEF has also made more than 12,000 small grants directly

to nongovernmental and community organizations, totalling $495 million.23

21

22

23

b. United Nations Development Programme

The UNDP is the UN’s development network. It works to advocate for change and connect countries

to knowledge, experience and resources. In doing this, it also assists countries attract and use aid

effectively.24 In this way, the UNDP is often, as in this case, an implementing partner and assists

national projects in receiving and administering funds.

c. Department of Environment

The DoE is headed by the First Vice President and tasked with the protection of Iran’s natural

environment. In order to achieve this, the DoE not only works to control the hunting of Iran’s

wildlife, but it also works in areas such as the preventing of the release of pollutants into waterways

and the atmosphere, the prevention of the over extraction of Iran’s natural resources and the

compliance with Iran’s international environmental commitments. In doing this, it also works with

other Government ministries to find a balance between often competing demands.

3.4 Monitoring and Evaluation Framework

A detailed Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Plan is included as Annex 1.2 of the Project Document.

A summary of this M&E Plan is as follows:

Type of Action Stakeholders Due by

Planning

1 Preparation and Submission of the Project Annual Planning & Reporting Package

Project Board & Project Team

By end of January 2011

2 Quarterly Work plans 2011 Project Team 15 January, April, July, October 2011

Reporting

3 Quarterly Progress Reports Executive Board, Implementing Partners as described in Project Document, Project Team, General Public (via Project website)

For comments: 1st Q report by 15 April 2011, 2nd Q report by 15 July 2011 & 3rd Q report by 15 Oct 2011

4 Workshops to be reported by assigned rapporteur

Project Management, M&E and Workshop Participants

Within 1 month of workshop

5 Bilingual Annual Report Project Board, Implementing Partners as described in Project Document, Project Team, General Public (via Project website)

11 Dec 2011 to be sent for review of Project Team 15 Dec 10 incorporate comments, 17 Dec 2011 send copy to Board

24

members

Monitoring

6 Update Project Equipment Inventory List

Project Management & M&E Quarterly (last week of March, June, September and December 2011)

7 Site visits Project Management Two missions in each quarter. Reports are due within three days upon return from mission.

8 Mission Logs M&E Quarterly (last week of Mar, Jun, Sept and Dec 10)

9 Risks, Issue and Lessons Learnt Logs

M&E Quarterly (last week of Mar, Jun, Sept and Dec 10)

10 Project SC Meetings Project Board Members, M&E

July and Dec 10

11 Reviewing and applying management response for MTE

Project Board, Implementing Partners as described in Project Document, Project Team, General Public (via Project website)

Quarterly (last week of Mar, Jun, Sept and Dec 10)

Table 6

4.0 Progress in attaining Project Outcomes

This section of the report discusses the overall progress towards achieving the Project outcomes.

Each section begins by stating the respective target outcome or objective and is followed by the key

results for that outcome that have culminated in 2011. This is followed by a general overview

regarding the Project’s progress towards the overall objective, with reference to Table 10 is included

in Annexure IV.

4.1 Local Model Wetland Management System

Outcome One: Model wetland management system designed and being implemented by

DoE and other local stakeholders at demonstration sites to effectively

address the most significant ‘internally arising’ threats to globally

significant biodiversity.

a. Implementation of Integrated Management Plans of Demonstration Sites

Along with the formation of managerial structures, implementation of management plans was also

in high priority in 2011. Implementation status of the management plans until the end of 2011 is as

followed:

Assessment on LU MP Implementation

Assessment on LP MP Implementation

b. Development of wise use strategies and action plans

“Action Plan on LP pollution management and control” was prepared and approved

This action plan was prepared in a participatory process through a workshop to discuss and review

the stakeholders’ comments on the draft of the afore-mentioned plan by CIWP’s representatives

and the government stakeholders.

Modified and finalized draft of action plan was also discussed in the LP biodiversity and water sub-

committee to indicate monitoring and implementation mechanisms of this plan in line with their

internal commitments and report to LP management committee. This action plan was finally

approved in LP management committee.

Shadegan wetland zoning maps and codes of practice were finalized

Zoning maps and codes of practice are very important tools for further development around

wetlands and they are attached to integrated management plans for approval. SW zoning maps and

codes of practice were finalized by Khouzestan DoE and other provincial and local stakeholders and

shared with all related authorities for implementation and consideration in development projects.

LP ecotourism strategy and action plan was prepared

Several meetings were held by LP ecotourism subcommittee to prepare LP ecotourism strategy and

action plan in line with MP management plan and based on an agreed road map and required steps.

This strategy and action plan is now a basis for the subcommittee for developing new ecotourism

projects and reviewing submitted proposal.

Agreement and initial steps for developing SW sustainable fishery strategy

After preparing a road map, Khouzestan DOE is leading process of development of SW fishery

strategy in cooperation with related organizations and representatives of Local communities

including fisherman in wetland areas.

c. LU satellite wetlands

Final draft of Gorigol wetland and first draft of Gharegheshlagh wetland management plans

were prepared

LU satellite wetlands are playing a very important and supportive rule within LU ecosystem and LU

integrated management plan has a special emphasis on their management and conservation.

Gorigol wetland (near Tabriz) management planning process which was started around 2 years ago,

had its final participatory workshop for the last comments from stakeholders and final version is

ready for ratification at local and provincial level. In line with this steps Gorigol water canals were

also repaired and modified for a better water flow to the wetland.

Gharegheshlagh wetland (near Bonab) basic studies is almost finished and its management planning

process started through holding the first workshop and preparing the first draft.

Kanibarazan wetland designated as a Ramsar convention site and as Wild Life Refuge

After a one year follow up and cooperation among WA DoE, DoE habitat office and CIWP required

document for Kanibarazan wetland designation was prepared and submitted to the Ramsar

convention secretariat. Designation of Kanibarazan as a Ramsar site and Wild Life Refuge was

announced in 40th anniversary of the convention in Iran

d. Conservation and monitoring of LP biodiversity and endangered species

Three conservation ponds established and monitored to save LP endangered fish species.

LP faced a severe drought in recent years and it caused a serious threat to biodiversity especially

endemic fishes of the wetland. As an urgent response to the current situation a 0.7 ha in-site pond

was established beside one of the wetland active springs with involvement of local community,

NGOs and local DoE. In two other parts of the nearby areas on in habitat and one artificial small

ponds were established in cooperation with local DoE and fishery organization to save and monitor

remaining endemic fishes of the wetland.

Installation boundary markers (buoys) for High Sensitivity zone of LP

The LP sensitivity zones were developed in a participatory way with representation from the main

stakeholder groups, particularly the fishermen. The High sensitivity zones will play an important role

both as refuges from human disturbance for wintering and breeding waterbirds (including globally

threatened species), as well as providing a no fishing zone, which has great potential to help improve

fish stocks. This identification of core zones is a crucial management and conservation tool.

Hence, according to CIWP workplan, a project for buoys installation around the high sensitivity zone

of Lake Parishan was carried out by Kazeroun DoE .

Capacity development for conservation and monitoring of Otter and Typha

Otter and Typha were distinguished as indicator species for LP wetland condition and monitoring of

these species was part of LP management plan priority actions. Several activities were accomplished

in cooperation with a national NGO (Plan for Land) for community empowerment on monitoring

Otter around the wetland. More than 100 students and teachers were trained, in this training

course, Guards and local communities and NGOs were trained about joint cooperation and methods

of identifying and detecting wildlife and Otter, which was highly welcomed by participants.

Two training booklets and one brochure were published and a local team received advanced and

field training for further monitoring of the Otter. Basic field study is finished and preparation of an

action plan for Otter conservation has been started.

An experimental exclosure has been established for Typha around LP and a local NGO monitor and

record the condition of the Typha within exclosure in comparison with the one out of it for further

analysis and actions.

LP land conflict resolution process

Land conflict around LP is a long history dispute between local community and local authorities

including Local DoE office. Resolution of this conflict was the first priority action within management

planning process from most of stakeholders view point.

Following CIWP’s efforts for resolution of land conflicts in LP during 2011, a road map and action

plan which show the approach and role of responsible authorities was prepared and approved. A

map which indicates possible area of conflicts among different stakeholders was prepared by natural

resources organization as a next important step. Judiciary office announced the boarders of the map

in the news paper as one of legal step to issue the wetland title-deed after resolving possible

conflicts. At the same time negotiation has been started with local community representatives to

discuss land conflicts and more than 4 km of borders was fixed and marked by Kazeroun DoE.

e. LP Summary baseline report

This report compiles existing information on Lake Parishan to describe the Lake and its attributes,

including the, ecological and socio-economical characteristics of the lake and its surrounding

villages. The report provides a concise baseline of the status of the Lake at the time of the

UNDP/GEF/DOE Conservation of Iranian Wetlands Project.

f. Community engagement and public awareness

SW local community engagement in wetland management structures

Shadegan wetland has a unique structure in terms of large number of villages and local community

around the wetland and their direct impact of SW functions and values with their livelihood.

For an effective involvement of the local community within wetland management processes, several

meetings were held with different villagers to discuss SW management plan and several trainings

were held for more than 100 students and teachers in 8 schools around the wetland.

8 representatives from different part of the wetland are now members of working groups and

provincial and local management committees.

Community engagement for LP management plan implementation

LP Community had a strong role in the management plan development and this role continued in

the next phase which was implementation. Active participation in developing sustainable

agriculture around the lake, involvement in training for Otter conservation and formation of a local

monitoring team, Female Sustainable Agriculture Facilitators initiatives on establishing micro credits

and participation in tour leader training course as an alternative livelihood initiatives are some good

examples of such an effective role.

TV and Radio Programs

Eight talk shows of a 26 episode series about LU problems and management were broadcasted from

EA provincial TV with participation of responsible authorities and NGOs at national and provincial

level as public awareness initiative and basis for further discussion on the issues.

At the same time a Radio program about LU is being broadcasted from WA Radio channel every

week. Also project manager has participated in different TV/radio programs about issues of Iranian

Wetlands with particular focus on Lake Urumiyeh.

SW water and biodiversity monitoring protocols prepared

After preparation and approval of SW management plan its monitoring plan and protocols remained

to be discussed among stakeholders. Khouzestan water authority as head of WAWG led the

preparation of water monitoring protocols in cooperation with other members and Khouzestan DoE

did the same for biodiversity protocols. These protocols will be attached to the management plan in

publishing stage.

“Wetlands management for biodiversity” training courses

Three workshops on management and restoration of Parishan and Shadegan wetlands and Lake

Urmia for biodiversity conservation were held in June 2011 and more than 90 experts from different

related provincial authorities were trained.

The main issues raised and presented in this workshop included wetlands biodiversity management,

management of wetland habitats, species management and restoration of biodiversity. In the last

session of this workshop, management achievements, the effects of exploitation of wetland

ecosystems products, the necessity of habitats restoration, enhancement of water resources and

improvement of fauna and flora were reviewed by CIWP’s international consultant.

4.2 Provincial Level Model Intersectoral Coordination

Outcome Two: Model intersectoral coordination demonstrated at provincial and basin

level enhances the sustainability of the wetland conservation system by,

inter alia, helping to address threats arising at ecosystem level.

a. The first meeting of LU regional council

The first meeting of LU regional council was held jointly with LU national management committee in

West Azerbaijan, chaired by WA governor, with participation head of DoE, LU National Committee

members (representatives of interior and agricultural ministries), East Azerbaijan and Kordestan

governors and head of all related provincial authorities from three provinces as the regional council

members.

In this meeting, the latest approvals of the National Committee, implementation guidelines for LU

water right and provincial water share, the 5-years priority projects and the financing issues,

implementation structure of LU regional and management council and also the problems of LU in

line with implementation of LU management plan were reviewed and discussed.

b. Lake Uromiyeh Water Right and Water Share

With Project’s support and following the approval of water right in last year, there has now been

final agreement on the LU Water-share among three provinces around the lake. This agreement

ensures that each province will allocate a specific amount of water as an environmental right for

preservation of the LUB environment. There has been much effort including prioritizing proposals

from implementing agencies and selecting 24 projects for urgent implementation through technical

and managerial meetings at national and provincial level among stakeholders. There have been good

achievements but still ways to go for full commitment and implementation of agreements.

c. Developing sustainable agriculture around LP and LU

Demonstration farms were established around LP

To develop sustainable agriculture around LP, one demonstration farm was established around LP

after initial coordination with local farmers and authorities. The established farm had different

experiments and introduced different techniques to manage water resources and chemical pesticide

and fertilizers. The farm provides technical support and trainings for 25 farms around it and they

weekly meetings were held in the main farm to review the result of each technique and possibility of

its implementation in their farms. 25 other farms applied at least 2 techniques in their farms. The

results are as follows:

Water Use Management

Method: Participatory Technology Development (PTD),

Total pilot area: 29.5 ha (the main pilot farm is 1.8 ha),

The number of pilot farms: 25

Water consumption in normal situation (crop: tomato): 1080 (m3/ha),

Average of saving water (the main pilot farm): 6606 (m3/ ha) and totally 11890.8 (m3),

Average of saving water (total pilot area): 4119.9 (m3/ ha) and totally 121537 (m3),

Integrated Pest Management

No Traditional Techniques Consumption

(Traditional

situation)

Consumption

(main pilot farm)

1 Chemical fertilizer (Phosphate) 200 (Kg/ ha) 0

2 Chemical fertilizer (Nitrate) 300 (Kg/ ha) 70 (Kg/ ha)

3 Chemical fertilizer (Potash) 300 (Kg/ ha) 0

4 Chemical Poisons

(Fungicide, Herbicide, Insecticide)

5+ 1+ 4 1+ 1+ 0

Crop Yield:

Crop: Tomato Average of crop yield (the main farm): 97.37 (Ton/ ha), Increase crop yield in the main pilot farm in compare with traditional situation: 17.9 %

Organic farming introduced to gardens around Gorigol and Seyran Goli wetlands

An MoU among CIWP, provincial agriculture organizations and local cooperative on developing

sustainable agriculture were finalized and signed (Gorigol and Sirangoli). These initiatives will be also

supported by GEF/SGP Iran through proposals which will be submitted by local NGOs.

In villages around Gorigol, basic surveys were done for 120 gardens (1118 ha) and 64 gardens were

selected for detailed studies as demonstration farms. For issuing level of organic farming an

international company (BCS) had a three day monitoring visit from selected gardens.

In villages around Sirangoli wetland, a technical committee was established in WA and 25 farmers

and 4 products were selected for introducing sustainable agriculture to the region. As initial steps

basic surveys were done and water management plan was developed for demonstration farms.

d. Demonstration sites management committees and technical working groups

Establishing management committees and their technical working groups for three demonstration

sites are one of the major achievements of CIWP to introduce a new approach of management for

wetland ecosystems and sustainability of these structures are one of the main project concerns for

2011 and 2012.

WA provincial management committee was established and had four meetings in 2011. This

committee is chaired by deputy governor and has a very strong role in coordination among

governmental authorities within the province

LP provincial and local management committee had two meetings to review and approve

proposals for management plan implementation and strategies and decision developed by

technical subcommittees. LP Water, Land conflict resolution, biodiversity and alternative

livelihoods technical subcommittees had several meetings to plan and monitor their related

priority actions in management plan and develop related strategies for further actions.

LU Water and Agriculture, Biodiversity and Public awareness and Participation working

groups had two meetings each to discuss their role and new responsibilities regarding the

first meeting of LU regional council and Plan for their related priority actions in management

plan.

SW local management committee established in 2011 and had two meetings to finalize the

committee membership and duties, review management plan priority actions and further

activities and responsibilities of stakeholders. Technical working groups had several

meetings mainly focused on finalizing monitoring plans and protocols and reviewing

proposals for MP priority actions.

e. Capacity development of demonstration sites secretariats

The secretariats play a very important role in efficient function and sustainability of multi-sectoral

management committees and technical working groups of demonstration wetlands. The secretariats

were established during previous years since management plans approval in each site which mainly

includes DoE staffs.

These secretariats should have enough capacity to play such a crucial role. For addressing this issue

as part of project exit strategy, CIWP developed draft of a capacity building program for the

secretariats. As an initial step, staffs of these secretariats that are mainly DoE staffs were

participating in a workshop to receive some training on required skills and share their experiences

and challenges with each other to be considered in the program.

The secretariats have also established their website for better information sharing among

stakeholders.

4.3 National Wetland Management and Coordination

Outcome Three: National level wetland management and intersectoral coordination

structures poses and utilize enhanced capacities, and the model system

developed through Outcomes 1 and 2 above is applied to wetlands

throughout Iran through strategies, replications, tools and exchange of

knowledge and lessons learned.

a. National wetland strategy and action plan finalized

In order to create a national wetland management framework and assist in the coordination of the

various organisations and stakeholders, the Project has now finalised National Wetland

Conservation Strategy and Action Plan. This is a document that incorporates both a strategy and an

action plan and aims to set a clear process for conserving Iran’s wetlands.

This document has been finalized after including final comments and inputs from main stakeholders

(NGOs, MOJA, DOE related offices, Water Authority, NRO, DCHT) and ratification by DoE head and

deputies council. The enclosed legal document for approval in the cabinet which clarify and secure

institutional arrangements and funds for implementation has also been prepared in close

cooperation with DoE related offices.

b. Securing National budget for wetland management system

As a part of rolling out strategy, CIWP was involved in securing two important national budgets for

DoE. The first budget was from article 212 (32) of 5th development plan, in which the amount of 175

billion Toman was allocated to a 5-years project, namely, Ecosystem Management of Iranian

Wetlands Project.

The second fund was secured from the emergency budget plan, which is a fund allocated from

excess oil revenue of the country. The fund is specifically assigned for management of water

resources in adjacent to the country borders as well as inhibition of aerosols in the border provinces

and conservation of Iranian wetlands. CIWP was involved in securing the amount of 90 billion Toman

from the mentioned fund.

c. Capacity development and engagement of DoE habitat office for CIWP exit strategy

As a part of CIWP exit strategy, one of the main objectives of CIWP is sustainability of its activities

after the project’s termination. Since DoE habitat office has the key role in conservation of Iranian

wetlands, capacity building of the office staffs was essential in order to provide an appropriate

circumstances for the sake of transferring CIWP responsibilities to wetland section of the habitat

office.

Initially, after conducting several investigations a capacity assessment questionnaire were devised

for habitat office, which was filled and discussed by the staffs through several meetings. In addition,

for the sake of gradual transferring of CIWP responsibilities to habitat office a table of monitoring

joint activities was developed. Currently, DoE habitat office staffs are under tailored trainings

according to the training course package, which was developed based on the questionnaire’s

outcome.

d. Preparation of wetland management toolkit based on CIWP experience

Conservation of Iranian Wetlands Project, as an ecosystem based project, has gained many

experiences which can be documented to be used by others involved in wetlands management.

To classify the achievements and lessons learned of the project, it was decided to develop a user-

friendly toolkit for the use of all wetland stakeholders and other. The toolkit is comprised of 8 main

parts including: ecosystem approach, baseline studies, management planning, institutional

arrangements and financing for wetland management, implementation of management plans, CEPA,

replication, institutionalization and roll-out and project management. This toolkit can provide an

online resource to support the establishment of ecosystem-based management plans for Iranian

Wetlands.

During 2011 the main framework and structure of the toolkit has been developed through several

meetings and correspondence of the project staff and consultants. The main categories have also

been divided into several subcategories.

e. Development of Iranian Wetland Database

The Wetland Database is a web-based system and It is based on the approach taken by the MEDWET

initiatives and will be a tool for the storing, monitoring and sharing of information on the status of

wetlands around the country. This is a tool that all provincial DoE in coordination with headquarter

related offices are able to update and track information on habitat details of their local wetlands.

Eventually these data will be made available to the public and could be used as a monitoring tool for

managers and experts.

The structure and software design of database has been finalized during 2011 after several testing,

modification and including feedbacks and comments from related DoE offices. Meetings and

workshops were held with DoE provincial and national experts to clarify data filling and approval

procedures and train experts as users of the data bank.

f. Sharing CIWP experience with Key national stake holders

Meetings with Parliament members on wetland management

Parliament members were one of project target groups to advocate the new system of wetland

management and having their support to develop legal infrastructures. CIWP participated in

parliament members’ technical working group meetings to support developing draft of a law for

implementing the new wetland management system in the country and for all important wetlands.

MoU with University of Environment

University of Environment is one of CIWP main counterpart to institutionalize and develop the

experience of ecosystem approach application for wetland management among university students,

professors and DoE experts.

Cooperation between CIWP and UOE was initiated in 2010 through joint training seminars for

university students and an MoU was signed between them in 2011 to enhance the cooperation in a

systematic context.

Following the signing of the MoU a meeting was held on 18th of Dec 2011, for exchanging and

sharing experience with university scientific board and professors and proposal was developed for

training of DoE staff and mangers on wetland management.

Close Cooperation with Ministry of Interior

Ministry of Interior along with provincial governor offices has a very important role in inter-sectoral

coordination among governmental authorities and CIWP supported improvement of this role in

close cooperation with related offices within the ministry.

In line with above cooperation, a consultative meeting was held on the importance of conservation,

management and socio-economic functions of wetlands and reviewing the role Ministry of the

Interior (MOI) and the Governors in implementing the integrated management plans.

In the other hand, 32 rural development director generals from all provincial governor offices were

gathered for a training workshop in ministry of interior and in one section CIWP provided a training

course on environment and wetland management based on ecosystem approach.

In this course some issues about management of local organizations, rural development, Local

councils and structures, strengthening local organizations were reviewed and discussed.

Study visits of other national projects from CIWP demonstration sites

CIWP facilitated and welcomed request from other national related project to visit project activities

in demonstration sites.

A technical group of Alborz project mainly from agriculture ministry experts visited LP and

sustainable agriculture demonstration farms and planning was started for Anzali wetland Project

team in 2012.

Half day training seminars for DoE, MoJA an MoE mangers and experts

Considering the significant role of all national stakeholders in integrated steering of the wetlands’

management activities in the provinces, raising awareness of the main national entities regarding

their roles in wetland conservation is of great importance. Hence, CIWP held three half day seminars

for the most important national stakeholders, namely, DoE, MoJA and MoE.

The target groups of these half day seminars were key managers and experts, who are involved in

wetlands related activities decision makings. The seminars’ agenda was mainly revolving around

CIWP activities elaboration along with discussion regarding the current responsibilities and tasks of

the organizations, which are in alignment with wetlands integrated management and CIWP goals.

g. Sharing achievements and lessons learnt at international level

Ramsar convention Asia Regional Pre-COP 11 meeting

This meeting was held on 13-18 Nov 2011 in Indonesia, with presence of Ramsar convention

member countries, international NGOs and the regional centres of the convention as a preparation

for next COP.

In this meeting, along with active participation of CIWP representative in the event, the report of

Conservation of Iranian wetlands project and the organization actions for wetlands management

and specially Lake Urmia Basin were presented and discussed as one of the successful experiences in

the basin.

Study visit of Pakistan technical group from CIWP experiences in demonstration sites

In a new initiative and in line with South-South cooperation, CIWP in cooperation with Ramsar Regional Center for West and Central Asia, hosted A technical/managerial Pakistani group to visit CIWP demonstration sites.

The group included governmental managers and experts working closely with Pakistan National wetland project which was implemented by World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF-Pakistan). The team visited Lake Urmia and Lake Parishan and was acquainted with CIWP activities, achievements and lessons learnt mainly on local community engagement, wetland management structures, field

activities by stakeholders and management plan development and implementation while sharing their comments and ideas with the project team.

40th anniversary of Ramsar convention (global forum on wetlands for the future)

The 40th anniversary of Ramsar convention was held on 5th of March 2011 in Tehran. The President of Islamic republic of Iran, The vice president, Head of Department of Environment and also 12 ministers of environment and representatives of 50-member countries attended at this ceremony.

CIWP provided technical support for the seminar and had a key lecture about the project activities and achievements while CIWP NPM was also selected as the national wetland champion.

Regional Community of Practice for Wetland Conservation Managers

After holding the first event of Regional Community of Practice for Wetland Conservation Managers in 2010 and gathering of wetland conservation managers from the region and sharing ideas, lessons learnt, good practice and experiences in wetland conservation a bilingual hand book was published and shared based on the workshop results and achievements with all the participants and related national and international organizations.

As the workshop proved very successful an initial planning was started to have the next workshop in Nepal.

h. CIWP exit strategy

In preparation for the final years of the project, CIWP team developed an exit strategy along with regular annual workplans for sustainability of the project achievements within national wetland management system and gradual delivery of project activities and responsibilities to related offices within DoE. There was a special focus on implementing this strategy within 2011 and it was also reflected on project activities during 2011 and planned ones for 2012.

As a result, the project concentrated more on finalizing activities in demonstration sites, securing national funds and budget for national wetland management system through developing national programs, close cooperation with related DoE offices to deliver responsibilities, develop and implement staff exit plan, reducing input and leadership for joint activities with stakeholders, concentrating more on documentation and production to roll out project achievements and approaches.

4.4 Drought Risk Management

Objective: Effective Drought Risk Management for Sustainable Livelihoods and

Biodiversity in the Environs of Lake Uromiyeh.

a. LUB drought risk management plan

Considering the current ongoing drought crisis in Lake Urmia , Conservation of Iranian Wetlands

Project started a project since 2009 to develop a drought risk management program for this

lake.The main objective of preparing LUB drought risk management plan is to identify LU water right

provision circumstances in drought situation. Since in recent years drought has affected LUB water

resources, there was a question that how LU water right should be provided in drought conditions

which in the water resources are reduced. This plan is in final stages of preparation and will be a

synthesis of the following reports and will be attached to LUB MP after being approved in LUB

national committee/regional council

LUB drought risk management International workshop

Since drought risk management plan is designed to be developed with a participatory approach also

using international experiences, this workshop has been held as a first activities of preparing next

reports. In this 4 day workshop some experiences in coping with drought from mediteranean

countries and Australia which have some similarities with LUB conditins presented for participants

who were key stakeholders in developing droght. Also it was a good opportunity to have these

stakeholders comments on how LUB DRM plan should be developed. In every day of workshop,

participants fulfilled questionnaires which were prepared before based on that day topics and

results were used for developing drought management structure. Also a particular report was

prepared for the workshop.

Drought characteristic (Spatial/Temporal behaviour)

Prefinal draft of this report was prepared, which includes the following sections:

- Drought spatial and temporal analysis in the defined base period with required resolution

- A historical analysis of drought in the basin in provincial scope on the base of the proper indicators

- Analyses drought severity- duration- frequency for each province in the LUB

Meteorological and hydrological variables trend in LUB

This report studies meteorological and hydrological variables trend based on 35 stations in LUB since

40 last years.

Drought management structure (organization)

The first report of LUB drought management structure was developed after a broad review on

several experiences specially using stakeholders’ ideas that were raised by the international

workshop questionnaires.

After that, it was revised by CIWP comments and sent to provincial Water Authorities and Jihad

Agriculture Authorities also to be more practical by their comments. It was also discussed in separat

meetings with these 2 authorities and then again was revised after receiving these stakeholders’

opinions.

Agriculture report

A model and related software has been developed by the consultant that through agriculture data of

every sub-basin in LUB, calculates optimized water requirements and distribution in different

drought levels for different crops based on agriculture area and crop pattern(crop clustering,

agriculture calendar, plant grow period,..). Based on this model, drought is considered as 4 different

levels(low to high intensity) and in each level water right reduction percent of cultivations and

gardens is specified to meet LU water right in that sub-basin.

This report was prepared for Aji-chai sub-basin and after that in a special meeting with LUB

provincial JA As, the methodology and gathered data were presented and been discussed. After this

participatory meeting, this report was revised based on received written comments of these

authorities and now is being developed for all the sub-basins.

Monitoring system report:

Another new report on LUB DRM, is the Monitoring system/software. A monitoring system and also

software is developed for LUB, to monitor drought daily or in defined periods. UDMP (Urmia

Drought Monitoring Package) is an analytical software that can calculate

hydrological/meteorological drought indicators (SDI, DI, SPI, EDI) in the basin.

Water allocation model report:

This report/model is the main report of DRM project. A pre-report for LUB water resources

allocation model was developed and after that in a same cycle like agriculture report, it was revised

by CIWP and then presented for LUB WAs in a meeting and again revised after receiving their

comments on it.

Now, this report is being developed for all the LUB sub-basins by the consultant, based on provincial

WAs Data about providing LU water right conditions and mainly on optimized water agriculture

results in the related sub-basins.

Along with developing LUB DRM plan, a synthesis report was prepared on LU and LP drought

situation, drought impacts on the wetland and possible solutions for the future for being submitted

to GEF as a description of demonstration wetlands.

4.5 Progress Towards the Overall Objective

Overall Objective: To establish an effective management system to systematically remove or

substantially mitigate threats facing globally significant biodiversity and

sustainability at two WPA demonstration sites, while ensuring that the

lessons learned are absorbed within WPA management systems

throughout Iran.

The Project has now completed its seventh year of operation and has made substantial progress

towards its objectives. It is currently working to complete the remaining objectives of Outcomes

One and Two. For the next one year, its focus will be on rolling out the wetland management

framework beyond the project sites and to all the other Wetland Protected Areas (WPAs). This is in

line with Output 3.2 of the Annual Work Plan and mobilising resources from national budgets. As

such, it will be working to ensure the sustainability of the Project’s activities by working to establish

the National Wetlands Strategy Committee and having the DoE act as a secretariat for this

committee. It will also look to build the capacities of partners so that they may assume

responsibility for the wetlands.

5.0 Financial Overview

The information below is a break down of the Project finances to date. Please note that unless

stated otherwise, all figures are given in US Dollar denominations. 25

Table 7 below provides a breakdown of the various sources of funding for the Project. Only two

sources of funding are controlled by the UNDP, that from the TRAC and GEF budget lines. The rest is

provided in parallel from government partners.

Fund Allocation

TRAC 200,000.00

GEF 2,915,000.00

Government of Iran (In Parallel)

9,190,000.00

Government of Netherlands (In Parallel)

600,000.00

Total 12,905,000.00

Table 7

Table 8 below provides information on the total amount of TRAC and GEF funding budgeted and

utilised by the Project. An annual breakdown of the figures below is available in Annexure V as Table

11. However, for simplicity, Figures 1 and 2 on the following page present this information in

graphical form.

Fund Total Allocated TRAC and GEF

Funding

Funds Utilised

(2005-2011) Balance

TRAC 200,000.00 199,560.09 439.90

GEF 2,915,000.00 2,616,213.54 298,786.40

TOTAL 3,115,000.00 2,815,773.63 299,226.30

Table 8

25

0.00

20,000.00

40,000.00

60,000.00

80,000.00

100,000.00

120,000.00

1 2 3

Am

on

t: $

Year: 2009-2011

TRAC

TRAC AWP

TRAC Delivery

0.00

100,000.00

200,000.00

300,000.00

400,000.00

500,000.00

600,000.00

700,000.00

800,000.00

900,000.00

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Am

ou

nt:

$

Year

GEF

GEF AWP

GEF Delivery

The last table, Table 9, provides a breakdown of how the TRAC and GEF funding lines. Tables 11 and

12 in Annexure V provide an individualised breakdown for these budget lines.

Budget Categories TRAC and GEF

Funds Utilised in

2005-2011

Percentage of Total TRAC & GEF Utilised ($2.3mil)

Human Resources (including consultants)

1,725,077.54 61.26

Travel 335,620.11 11.92

Equipments 524,950.27 18.64

Others 231,760.12 8.23

Gain & Loss -930.58 -0.03

Total 2,815,773.54 100.00

Table 9

For 2012, the Project will move into the implementation of its exit strategy. As such it will focus its

activities and spending on the achievement of outcome three and the rolling-out of the Wetland

Management Systems to all the national wetland areas.

6.0 Challenges and Issues

a. Institutionalisation of Budgets and Management Structures

Although the Project has not had any direct budget problems itself and funds allocated by some of

national and local stakeholders for MPs implementation, a challenge faced by the Project has been

in having the budget allocations for the LU, LP and SW Management Plans institutionalised within

national systems. As such, this has also meant that there is a challenge in ensuring these budget

allocations are sustained into the future.

Related to this is the challenge of ensuring management structures are sustainable. The Project has

been successful in having key management structures created for the sustainable management of

the Project Sites. However, it will be important to ensure that these entities are able to be

maintained by national partners into the future. The secretariats have very important role for

sustainability of these management structure, but still need capacity development for implementing

the role.

These will be issues that will need to be overcome if the successes achieved to date are to continue

after the Project has closed.

b. Transferring Responsibilities

Over the life of the Project, many new and innovative activities have been attempted and these

have, by and large, been successful. The Project is now moving into its final stage of ensuring the

work done can be adopted into the wetland management system. As such, a challenge faced by the

Project is having the newly created responsibilities transferred over to national partners and carrying

out the national roll-out strategy.

7.0 Risk Management

Risk Suggested Solution

Wetlands may dry out as a result of

the severe drought.

The Drought Risk Management component has been added

to the Project through the assistance of the UNDP to address

this risk at LU. This could then become part of the Ecological

Management Plan.

At LP immediate action has been taken to help save

endangered species. This included the collection and

transfer of turtles to available water bodies with the local

community. A pond has also been created on the coastal

part of LP to create a temporary habitat for endangered

species.

To continue to mitigate this risk, it will be important to

ensure the Water-share Agreement is adhered to in the

future.

A shift in priorities such that

agreements made on wetlands are

not complied with; the water-share

for the LUB is an example.

In order to minimise this risk, the agreement reached by

technical working groups and being approved by

management committees. As an example, LU water

requirement has been approved by the LUB national

management committee and the regional council. But

implementations of all these decisions still need follow ups

and coordination with stakeholders.

Reduction of project team

incentives due to implementation of

staff exit plan in the final year

To address the risk, CIWP team developed a participatory

staff exit plan which tried to consider both project final year

limitations and staff individual concerns.

8.0 Lessons Learned and Good Practices

a. Project exit strategy and safe ending

Developing an exit strategy for the final years of the project, provided a good basis for a gradual shift

of project technical responsibilities to related stakeholders and a plan for staff exit from the project.

b. Management plans and critical situation

Project followed up and facilitated process of developing management plans in a participatory

process and cooperation with local community, governmental and non-governmental organizations.

This process brought the sense of ownership that in urgent environmental situation for the

wetlands, this management plans provide a very good common basis for further actions and

decision.

c. Some win-win small projects could accelerate the process of management plan

implementations

Implementing some win-win small projects in demonstration site in an earlier stage of the project

could have a good effect on MPs implementation in later steps and even the sense of MP

effectiveness by local communities and local authorities.

d. Close cooperation with implementing agency offices and governmental

stakeholders

It could be a risk for the project to focus on project activities without establishing useful and

effective links with the experts of the IA and other governmental organizations. Developing such

links and establishing inter-sectoral management mechanisms may prevent large changes within

project management body itself and established mechanisms due to political and managerial

changes in these organizations.

e. Gradual change

Sometimes projects tends to start and insist on big changes within IA and partner organizations in

short period which may normally cause to resistance from those agencies and reducing effectiveness

and speed of activities. Changes in a longer period are more acceptable and sustainable.

f. Community Engagement

If projects are to be successfully implemented and the outcomes to be long lasting, it is critical that

local community leaders are assured of the motives of the project and agree with the proposed

activities. To achieve this, the support and networks of local NGOs can be obtained and utilised.

The Project’s experiences and commitment to implementing a plan that was based on participation

and integration, coupled with its successes to date, are an example of the benefits of community

engagement.

g. Dispute Resolution

A key challenge that the Project Team has learnt to overcome is how to manage disputes with locals

at project sites. These often occurred because there were disagreements about the boundary of the

lakes and wetlands and the land should be used. To overcome this, the Project team establish a

structured dispute resolution mechanism at LP where grievances could be aired and addressed. This

was done with the cooperation of key partners, including the judiciary. This mechanism is still a

work in progress though it is assisting in the gradual resolution of disputes.

h. Establishing a Community of Practice

A good practice implemented by the Project was a site visit by an expert team from Pakistan. This

visit was an example of south-south cooperation and brought good amount of knowledge exchange

for the both sides due to common cultural and environmental basis of experiences.

9.0 Recommendations

a. Secured national budget as co-funding for international projects

One of the problems that international development projects normally faced is to secure national

budget in line with project activities. One recommendation for overcome this problem is developing

and approving a national program within governmental financial system which support the joint

project activities and provide financial resources in more secured mechanisms.

b. Previous Recommendations

Following the Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE), ten recommendations were made. Of those

recommendations, seven have been fully implemented and three are being finalised as part of the

national roll-out strategy.

It was noted by the Project Team that if programmes are to be implemented that require local buy-

in, a useful method in achieving this is to hold a large ceremony at the start of implementation.

However, instead of having the Project Office organise the ceremony, give the responsibility of

organisation to the local community. In this way, they are more likely to take pride in the event

organised and that they have a stake in the success of the programme.

10.0 Conclusion

Over the last seven years of implementation, the Project has come a long way towards achieving its

objective of establishing an effective management system that addresses the threats to the Project

Sites in cooperation with the main stakeholders at national and provincial leves. What is more, it is

working to ensure the lessons learned from this experience are absorbed within WPA management

systems throughout Iran.

On a national level, the urgent need to address the threats to wetland ecosystems has been taken to

the highest levels of Government through developing the national wetland strategy and action plan

and LU national management committee. Wetland data bank has been developed and is ready to be

used by DoE, and a project toolkit is under construction for further application by stakeholders. In

the other hand national budget has been secured for five years for application and roll out of CIWP

experiences and new management system for important wetlands around the country.

On a provincial and basin level, LU and LP integrated Management Plans implementation had a good

progress in the Project sites. Three demonstration sites Management committees and technical

working groups had several meetings and a reasonable function. Further, a water distribution

model has been developed for LU and approved by management committees. This should ensure

that the provinces surrounding LU release adequate water into LU to maintain its ecological

integrity. The Lake Uromiyeh Basin Regional council had one meeting. LU drought risk management

plan Prefinal draft has been prepared. Sustainable agriculture was introduced to LU and LP basin and

one demonstration farm established in LP.

At the local level, Shadegan wetland mapping, zoning and codes of practice have been developed

and finalized. The fact that this has been possible has been through the active engagement of the

local community and authorities. The efforts of the Project team have also helped to establish

mechanisms for the resolution of land use disputes between the DoE and locals. Gorigol wetland

management plan was finalized. In collaboration with NGOs and the UNDP, participatory approaches

to wetland rehabilitation and management have also been advocated to local communities.

In spite of these successes, the persistent drought continues to be a major threat to Iran’s wetlands,

particularly. Of particular concern is that they have resulted in the drastic diminishing of the water

levels of LU and LP and as a result both lakes are on the brink of desiccation. The Drought Risk

Management component of the Project is in final stage of approval and implementation which may

address this problem in next year.

References

The documents reviewed in the preparation of this report were:

Conservation of Iranian Wetlands Project, Annual Progress Report (2007)

Conservation of Iranian Wetlands Project, Annual Progress Report (2008)

Conservation of Iranian Wetlands Project, Annual Progress Report (2009)

Conservation of Iranian Wetlands Project, Progress Implementation Report (2011).

Global Environment Facility Website, www.thegef.org.

Hunnam, Peter and Raya Benis, Conservation of Iranian Wetlands Project Mid-Term Evaluation,

Conservation of Iranian Wetlands Project, 2009.

Ramsar Website, www.ramsar.org.

United Nations Development Programme – Iran, Conservation of Iranian Wetlands Project

Document, (2004).

United Nations Development Programme – Iran, Lake Uromiyeh Drought Risk Management

Project for Sustainable Livelihoods, Biodiversity and Micro-climate Management (Supplementary

project to the ongoing UNDP/GEF Conservation of Iranian Wetlands Project).

United Nations Development Programme Website, www.undp.org.

Annexure I– Progress towards Project Objective26

Objective: To establish an effective management system to systematically remove or substantially mitigate threats facing globally significant

biodiversity and sustainability at two WPA demonstration sites, while ensuring that the lessons learned are absorbed within WPA management

systems throughout Iran.

Indicator Project Target Level Baseline Status at 30 June 2011

Population of indicator bird

species in Lake Uromiyeh

and satellite wetlands.

Flamingos >2,500

breeding pairs annually

White Pelican, >200

breeding pairs annually

Four globally threatened

waterbirds, 20% increase

in counts

Flamingos ,209 pairs,

Average 2003-2006.

(Was15-25,000 pairs in

mid-1970s (Scott 1995))

White Pelicans, 110 Pairs,

Average 2003-2006. (Was

1000-1600 pairs in mid

1970s (Scott 1995))

Marmaronetta

Angustirostris: 9

Oxyura Leucocephala: 40

Aythya Nyroca: 27

Branta Ruficollis: 1

TOTAL: 77

Average 2003-2006 (all

satellite wetlands)

Flamingos: 2531

0 breeding pairs

white pelicans: 7

0 breeding pairs

Marmaronetta angustirostris : 86

Oxyura leucocephala: 78

Aythya nyroca: 5

Branta ruficollis: 0

TOTAL: 169

Lake Uromiyeh’s status and

salinity levels.

Safeguard as “a

magnificent example of a

natural, hypersaline lake

The current status of “a

magnificent example of a

natural, hypersaline lake

Drought crisis has further reduced water levels

and scenic beauty

26

with great scenic

beauty.”

Salinity less than 240 g/L.

with great scenic beauty”

at risk due to increased

salinity levels and

decreased water levels.

Salinity 258.46 g/L

Salinity: 380 - 400 gr/lit Salinity: 370 g/L.

Area of protected satellite

wetlands around Lake

Uromiyeh.

1000 ha of satellite

wetlands gain increased

protection.

0 ha

Kanibarazan Satelite Wetland (927 ha) gained

increased protection and designated as non-

hounting area Kanibarazan was

designated as a Ramsar Site and gained its

designation in Feb 2011 as Iran 24th site

Breeding population of

globally threatened

Dalmatian Pelican at Lake

Parishan.

>200 pair annually.

There is no 2000-05 data

on breeding the

population. Scott (1995)

quotes 5-10 pairs for mid

1970s.

Wintering: 64 (2000-05

January average).

Wintering: 0 (Jan 2011) because of Severe drought

0 breeding pairs

Area of disputed

agricultural lands

encroached into Lake

Parishan.

Reduced by 50%. Ca. 800 ha (Still

under negotiation)

0% (The issue raised in local management

committee, mapping of the wetland and land conflict

area has been prepared and approved by main stake

holders which is a key toolkit for next step and

common area for further discussion , a special

committee formed for conflict resolution )

Ecosystem approach being

applied strategically to

WPAs at national level.

Ecosystem approach to

WPAs being promoted

through national

No strategy, 0

provinces.

Final version of National Wetland Conservation

Strategy and Action plan was prepared

5 provinces (W.Azerbayjan, E.Azerbayjan, Kurdistan,

strategy by end 2011 and

being implemented in

minimum 5 provinces by

EoP.

Fars and Khouzestan) are now implementing the

approach through 3 signed management Plan (for LP,

LU and SW) mplementation in three demonstration

sites stakeholders workshop and hoped to be

approved in the near future.

Table 10

Annexure II – Detailed Project Finances

The Table 11 below provides an annual breakdown of the total GEF and TRAC funding allocated to the Project and the total amount utilised.

Year GEF AWP GEF Delivery TRAC AWP TRAC Delivery Total CDR

2005 341,461.00 55,107.13 - - 55,107.13

2006 782,194.00 358,924.64 - - 358,924.64

2007 463,340.00 352,962.03 - - 352,962.03

2008 662,122.00 522,136.50 - - 522,136.50

2009 442,500.00 394,294.80 77,900.00 60,006.09 454,300.89

2010 501,500.00 481,991.27 100,000.00 59,691.90 541,683.17

2011 481,000.00 450,797.44 80,302.00 79,862.10 530,659.54

TOTAL 3,674,117.00 2,616,213.54 258,202 199,560.09 2,815,773.90

Table 11

Tables 12 and 13 on the subsequent pages provide a breakdown of how the respective TRAC and GEF budget lines were spent.

Budget Categories

Total TRAC budget (2009-

2011)

Amount of TRAC Utilised 2005-

2011*

Percentage of Variation From

Total TRAC Budget ($200K)

Percentage from Total Funds

Utilsed ($120K) Remarks

Human Resources including Consultants

141,000.00 165,949.53 -17.69% 83.16%

Machinery and Equipment

23,500.00 6,719.89 71.40% 3.37%

Travel 33,000.00 25,169.05 23.73% 12.61%

Others 2,500.00 2,685.00 -7.40% 1.35%

Gain and loss 0.00 -259.55

-0.13%

TOTAL 200,000.00 199,560.00 0.22% 100.00%

Table 12

Budget Categories

Total GEF Budget (2005-2012)

Amount of GEF Utilised 2005-

2011

Percentage of Variation from

Total GEF Budget ($2.915 mil)

Percentage from Total GEF Utilzed

($2.166mil) Remarks

Human Resources Including Consultants

1,258,600.00 1,559,128.01 -0.24 0.60

Travel 713,390.00 328,900.22 0.54 0.13

Office Machinery & Equipments

301,250.00 499,781.22 -0.66 0.19

Others 641,760.00 229,075.12 0.64 0.09

Gain & Loss 0.00 -671.03 0.00

TOTAL 2,915,000.00 2,616,213.54 0.10 1.00

Table 13

National Co-Financing, GEF, TRAC budget`s Expenditure 2005-2011

Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

GOV 39,302 131,100 393,820 569,200 889,000 959,400 17,188,900

GEF 55,107 358,924 352,962 522,136.5 394,294 481,991 428,300

UNDP 0 0 0 0 60,006 59,692 80,302

Total 96,414 492,030 748,789 1,093,344.5 1,343,300 1,501,083 17,697,502

National Budget Expenditure (Cash and In-Kind), 2005-2011

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

16,000,000

18,000,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

16,486,200

In kind

In cash